Late last week, a member of the West Virginia House of Delegates introduced new state legislation that would effectively ban Google Glass usage while driving. As far as we know, if West Virginia's bill were to pass, it would be the first bill in the country to address Google Glass and similar devices.

Gary Howell (R-Mineral), has appended an existing law banning the use of handheld mobile phones while driving (except for “hands-free” devices), but this now also includes a “wearable computer with a head-mounted display.”

"Last [legislative session], we were working really hard on the 'no texting and driving' [aspect], saying you couldn't use a handheld device," Howell told Ars. "I got to looking at Google Glass, and the way [our bill is] written, a headset is a hands-free device. So we're going to have people driving down the road, texting and watching videos, not paying attention to what they're doing."

The new bill defines such a device as “a computing device which is worn on the head and projects visual information into the field of vision of the wearer.”

That seems to be squarely aimed at Google Glass, which will be available to the public later this year for “less than $1,500.”

Howell added that he hadn't researched to see what other states have done or are considering.

The West Virginia Republican said he doesn't anticipate regulating the device any further in other circumstances, noting that "If I'm in a public space, I have no expected right of privacy."

He also underscored his belief in personal liberty, adding, "I wear seatbelts religiously but I don't believe in seatbelt laws."

“As always, feedback is welcome.”

Google didn't respond directly to questions about the new West Virginia bill, but the company implied that Glass, or a Glass-like device, could be used to help drivers.

“We are putting a lot of thought into the design of Glass because new technologies always raise new issues," a Google spokesperson wrote to Ars. "We actually believe there is tremendous potential to improve safety on our roads and reduce accidents. As always, feedback is welcome.”

Howell added that he's read online comments where people compare Glass to a fight pilot, who can have similar heads-up displays.

"In a jet fighter you're displaying information that is critical to the operation of the vehicle," Howell countered. "Also, pilots are talking about information overload, and they received $1 million in training to fly that thing."

He noted that the bill might not pass this legislative session before it ends this week (West Virginia's House of Delegates is a part-time lawmaking body). If it doesn't, Howell would introduce it next session in early 2014. "[By then] we'll have some horror stories where people [were wearing] Glass and crashed," he said.

Still, the lawmaker isn't against feature-specific types of head-mounted displays. Howell even admitted that he's intrigued by the technology ("I would like to try it; I think it would be rather interesting"). But the potential multi-tasking capabilities of Google Glass are ultimately what make Howell see the device as possibly disruptive on the road.

"It probably would work well for [single-use navigation] applications," he said. "But the problem is that that's not all [Glass] does. If you had a dedicated GPS unit, then you're probably OK. [With Google Glass,] you can watch videos. You can get texts from people. That creates the safety problem."

Promoted Comments

"It probably would work well for [single-use navigation] applications," he said. "But the problem is that that's not all [Glass] does. If you had a dedicated GPS unit, then you're probably OK. [With Google Glass,] you can watch videos. You can get texts from people. That creates the safety problem."

To be fair, I actually agree with a politician in this case. Howell raises a very valid argument. If the overlay were to be used for completely driving related purposes (basically supplanting the dash cluster, GPS functions, etc) and locking out any non-driving related functions such as watching Youtube clips, texting, video calls, etc. Then yes, I see no problems leaving these devices for use in the car. But unfortunately that simply isn't the case. Google Glass won't lock out these functions when you're in a car, and distracted driving risks will increase many-fold in these situations, especially in the already predisposed demographics.

For once, as much as I hate to say it, a politician has rationally thought something through.

Just ridiculous. Why not wait until the devices themselves are released and then evaluate them via committee? You know, use real science?

But he's already made up his mind:

Quote:

Howell would introduce it next session in early 2014. "[By then] we'll have some horror stories where people [were wearing] Glass and crashed," he said.

I bet the "horror stories" won't make a distinction on whether Google Glass contributed to the accident or not, just a simple factual statement that the person was wearing it at the time of the accident.

Just ridiculous. Why not wait until the devices themselves are released and then evaluate them via committee? You know, use real science?

The potential for information overload and distracting a driver with Internet Glasses is significant. It would be better to require devices be authorized before being allowed in cars. A car itself has to be tested before its legal to drive on the streets. Why not require Internet Glasses be tested to verify they do not cause significant distraction before they get a driving acceptable rating?

Blindly allowing the technology and asking them to restrict it after its already legal and in use could lead to accidents on the road. Thats worse than blindly banning it.

It seems like if the bill is not worded carefully, it might end up banning fighter-jet-style windshield HUDs like you occasionally see in high-end vehicles. The politician acknowledges the comparison between fighter jet HUDs and Google glass, but seemingly fails to realize that HUDs already exist in cars.

A more targeted law would be more effective, perhaps requiring HUDs to have a software "car mode" where certain distracting functions are suppressed.

Just ridiculous. Why not wait until the devices themselves are released and then evaluate them via committee? You know, use real science?

Look at what happened while cellphones went unregulated. We got 'real science' and it said you suck at using a cell phone while driving. Plenty of people died in accidents. Now everybody on the road uses one, even in places where using a handheld device while driving is illegal, all the time. And no matter what you would like to tell me to the contrary, you are a much worse driver no matter how you are using the phone while you drive - talking, texting, or otherwise.

Sometime in the past 100 years, law moved from punishing the guilty to preventing crime (with laws? LOL!) and lately to protecting us from ourselves. Niiiiice. Where does it end?

Why don't we wait and see what kind of impact this has, before we legislate it?

Also, the way that prop is worded, it would ban any wearable projector.... like a wearable heads up display of a car Mercedes and Audi will be trying to sell you in a few years. HUD in a car only be a good thing, no? No need to look down while driving.

"It probably would work well for [single-use navigation] applications," he said. "But the problem is that that's not all [Glass] does. If you had a dedicated GPS unit, then you're probably OK. [With Google Glass,] you can watch videos. You can get texts from people. That creates the safety problem."

To be fair, I actually agree with a politician in this case. Howell raises a very valid argument. If the overlay were to be used for completely driving related purposes (basically supplanting the dash cluster, GPS functions, etc) and locking out any non-driving related functions such as watching Youtube clips, texting, video calls, etc. Then yes, I see no problems leaving these devices for use in the car. But unfortunately that simply isn't the case. Google Glass won't lock out these functions when you're in a car, and distracted driving risks will increase many-fold in these situations, especially in the already predisposed demographics.

For once, as much as I hate to say it, a politician has rationally thought something through.

I have to admit my gut instinct was - "Boooo! Regulations on stuff you haven't even seen yet! Way to be moron." But another poster brought up an important fact, which is that evaluating the safety of the device early is a very important step towards establishing a safe societal norm. Lots of people talk on their cell phones, and even worse text on their phones. This makes driving less safe. It takes a lot of time, money, laws, and education to change a societal norm.

Even if his amendment has no hope, and frequently amendments are added for press as opposed to any thoughts that they will actually be included, it starts an important conversation that can lead to either no law or a law that makes sense in terms of safety. We could save a lot of time, money, and lives by figuring this out sooner rather than later.

"It probably would work well for [single-use navigation] applications," he said. "But the problem is that that's not all [Glass] does. If you had a dedicated GPS unit, then you're probably OK. [With Google Glass,] you can watch videos. You can get texts from people. That creates the safety problem."

To be fair, I actually agree with a politician in this case. Howell raises a very valid argument. If the overlay were to be used for completely driving related purposes (basically supplanting the dash cluster, GPS functions, etc) and locking out any non-driving related functions such as watching Youtube clips, texting, video calls, etc. Then yes, I see no problems leaving these devices for use in the car. But unfortunately that simply isn't the case. Google Glass won't lock out these functions when you're in a car, and distracted driving risks will increase many-fold in these situations, especially in the already predisposed demographics.

For once, as much as I hate to say it, a politician has rationally thought something through.

And people *will* use them to play games and watch You Tube instead of the road. We know this, because it's humans that will be wearing them.

That said, I'd prefer laws about distracted driving instead of playing whack-a-mole with specific devices and technologies. When Google Glass becomes too small for the police officer to see, or looks just like regular glasses, it will become a law that is not enforceable but the problem will still exist.

When Google's (or someone else's) driverless cars hit the mass market, this will all become a moot point. Now there's something to look forward too.

Till then, though, I've seen enough distraction-driven road accidents with serious consequences to believe that anyone using these things (and ANY other distraction) ought to be slammed by massive fines.

Just ridiculous. Why not wait until the devices themselves are released and then evaluate them via committee? You know, use real science?

Studies have already proven that the the distraction of a conversation or other task while driving is a problem, not just handheld vs handsfree use of a cell phone. Yes, handling the phone and typing a text message is dangerous, but so is simply taking your concentration away from the road and using it to issue a voice command that sends the text.

Most states already have laws regulation cellphone usage. Either banning cell phones or making hands free devices mandatory. How many people follow those laws and how many police actually pull people over for them?

I think many people here agree that we should try following the laws we have and actually policing the laws we actually have before banning a device we no little about before it's even left the factory.

Personalty for me I don't think any device can distract us much more than most the stuff people have on their dashboards atm and that's without people not paying attention with a phone in one hand.

The most shocking thing in this article is the realization that some politicians do appear to have common sense. The man is right, too bad it's only a law on state level. I wish our Euro-commisioners would make similar regulations.

I hope Google doesn't take this as a law against them but as a law for safety. People should not be driving around with portable HUD's. It's just a stupid idea. I predict cyclists crashing into things but at least they cause less damage.

No matter how much some people might want to, we can't legislate away drivers eating a cheeseburger or applying makeup on the freeway. That doesn't itself make this kind of restriction a bad idea. Legislation hasn't "solved" drunk driving either, so I don't buy the "enforce what we already have" angle. It's a strawman.

Re personal liberty, crashes aren't just going to occur between two people who're both using Glass or another HUD. It's a matter of time before some jerk mows down an old lady while giggling at Youtube cats.

So can I get fined for simply having Glass on my face while driving around? If the product becomes as ubiquitous as Google hopes, I can imagine a number of people simply forgetting they're wearing them when they get in their car to drive somewhere, despite not interacting with the device in any way.

It would be a pain to have to remember to take them off whenever you get in a car and then not *leave* them in your car when you get out - a smartphone, conversely, spends its time put away in your pocket when you're not actively using it (hence having your smartphone "out" while in a car generally implies you're doing stuff on it).

That's just no argument. How about FIRST showing that something is dangerous and then perhaps making rules governing the dangerous part? Like browsing the web instead of using it for something beneficial like turn by turn navigation. If you really see disproportionally many crashes with Glass users you could make a law that forces developers to add a driving mode that switches off some functionality if the GPS location is moving fast. But even that sounds like overkill. For all we know it will be good for safety because idiots stop texting with their head down and instead use the much safer headsup display and voice commands.

We all know guys will be watching porn on the drive to/from work, and ironically, perhaps videos taken from the countless beach-bound peepers that will lead to the double meaning of "no glass on the beach."

Just ridiculous. Why not wait until the devices themselves are released and then evaluate them via committee? You know, use real science?

Because common sense dictates that google glass + driving = fucking stupid. It's a pity, but people really are that stupid. Do you really need a committiee to evaluate the dangers of being distracted while moving 2-tons of metal at 60mph? Your right to be fucking retarded ends at my right to not be killed by your fucking retarded bullshit.

carbonsx wrote:

So are they going to ban GM's HUD as well?

Depends, do you wear it on your head? I'll admit, at first I thought "That's just stupid, HUD's are awesome!" then I saw the wording. They're banning a computer worn on your head. Not HUD's.

Dilbert wrote:

Why don't we wait and see what kind of impact this has, before we legislate it?

Do you really think having someone drive while playing on a computer is a good idea? Do you hate living THAT MUCH? Yes, banning it won't completely stop it, but that's fairly irrelevant. You + Google Glasses + Driving = Public Hazard. Whats the difference between you watching something/reading something on Google glasses while you drive, and me reading a book while driving? If you can't be assed to disconnect long enough to drive your ass somewhere, get the fuck off my road.

You know, I'm pretty sure that fighter pilots are not using their heads-up displays for 'net surfing and chatting during flight.

My pregnant wife was hit by a car, in broad daylight, in a crosswalk, during a "walk sign." Driver stopped, looked right at us, then went through the cross-walk (with us in it) to make a right turn. She was talking on her cellphone. Put my wife right on the hood and put me in the street. We were both banged up, but the baby made it.

The woman never hung up her phone.

If you want to say that's an acceptable outcome so that you can check your facebook friends whenever you want or take that call from your buddy about where to meet up for beer later, well, I guess you're the very paragon of a bad person. There's no need for more study on this issue. Distracted driving is deadly.

You whiner types need to get over the idea that restricting technology is some kind of holy war. You don't have a Right to a cell phone. You don't have a Right to a constant connection to Facebook. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Right to Not Be Crushed by a 2,500lb Vehicle trumps any conception of those.

You're missing the same thing half the commentors are. This isn't an attack on a HUD. This is an attack on a device that has NOTHING to do with driving, and EVERYTHING to do with distracting you.

Claiming it has NOTHING to do with driving is hyperbolic; the main (and pretty much only) reasons I'd want to be able to use/wear Glass while driving would be to get navigation without pulling my eyes away from the road and perhaps for getting other vehicle-related stats (such as GPS speed/heading, OBD2 info such as that provided already by Torque on android).

easy fix: have contextual code in the firmware for Google Glass that dictates that when it detects that the wearer is travelling faster than 10 mph and not in "airplane mode", it switches to a display that shows your current travel speed and a compass, and disables user input until the device comes to a stop.

That's just no argument. How about FIRST showing that something is dangerous and then perhaps making rules governing the dangerous part? Like browsing the web instead of using it for something beneficial like turn by turn navigation. If you really see disproportionally many crashes with Glass users you could make a law that forces developers to add a driving mode that switches off some functionality if the GPS location is moving fast. But even that sounds like overkill. For all we know it will be good for safety because idiots stop texting with their head down and instead use the much safer headsup display and voice commands.

Funny you bring that up. Stabbing me with a knife is illegal (I'll assume we aren't talking surgery), shooting me is illegal, pointing a laser at aircraft is illegal, many uses of bittorrent are illegal, many uses of network analysis tools are illegal, you can't drink a bottle of cough syrup and legally drive, many medications come with warnings to not operate heavy machinery. So really, your argument just shot itself in the foot. Google Glasses aren't illegal. Being fucking stupid by surfing facebook while driving is. Notice the difference?

You whiner types need to get over the idea that restricting technology is some kind of holy war. You don't have a Right to a cell phone. You don't have a Right to a constant connection to Facebook. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Right to Not Be Crushed by a 2,500lb Vehicle trumps any conception of those.

Ok... hold on.... one second... my phone is now equipped with a trigger and a barrel, so it's also a gun. I do have a right to it now. Go take it up with the founding fathers.

You're missing the same thing half the commentors are. This isn't an attack on a HUD. This is an attack on a device that has NOTHING to do with driving, and EVERYTHING to do with distracting you.

This is flat out false. Google Glass offers turn by turn directions while limiting the time users have to take their eyes off the road. And if it doesn't, I'm sure the community will add it over night. I'd say this has a LOT to do with HUDs and driving.

As for those of you saying this isn't an attack on HUD technology, it is because it is saying that only certain HUDs from certain companies will be allowed. This is like saying that you can't navigate with a dashboard mounted tablet or phone of your choice and must use the manufacturer's provided system even if it is more difficult to use and more dangerous or just plain ridiculously expensive.

Ok so let's simply disregard the simple fact that turn by turn navigation in a HUD is pretty surely better than having it in a position where you need to take away the view from the street. Which negates the whole generalization about a dangerous product. So I would say your common sense is not as sensible as you think.

Second thing is if somebody is stupid enough to surf the web he is most likely just as stupid to do that on his smartphone. Which is much much worse. There are so many idiots driving and texting, moving them to Google glass with a decent voice dictation system would be a safety boon. And I am not saying dictating a text with glass while driving is safe but neither is drinking coffee, smoking or making a phone call with speakers all of which are legal.

So how about we wait a bit till we have a couple crashes with glass users and then swing the ban hammer? You know like making a scientifically informed decision? This assumption that people need to be put in bubblewrap is a bit old anyway.